12 ms·
How Coca-Cola Undermines Plastic Recycling Efforts
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7y agoTL;DR: By opposing laws that require a deposit on plastic bottles.
- mattmaroon 7y agoCoke is fighting legislation that would make their product more expensive? You don't say!
- tobltobs 7y agodeposit != more expensive. same rule would apply to their competitors.
- koboll 7y agoFrom the article: >a bottle bill or container deposit law, which requires beverage companies to tack a charge onto the price of their drink to be refunded after it’s returned So, yeah, it'd make their product more expensive at the time of purchase. But "soda companies oppose recycling" is more sensational than "soda companies oppose adding a fee to the cost of their products".
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoDeposit and return has been the standard way of achieving working reuse and recycling, pretty much forever. A century ago including Coca-Cola and all the milk, pop and beer bottlers. Just about everything that wants something back puts a deposit on it - otherwise people have no incentive to bother. So the question becomes why do they oppose a fee that is unlikely to hurt overall sales? Ah, because they would have to do something with those returned bottles...
- kwhitefoot 7y ago> because they would have to do something with those returned bottles... No they don't. Here in Norway the bottles are compacted in the back of the reverse vending machine (usually from Tomra: https://www.tomra.com/nb-no/collection/reverse-vending https://www.tomra.com/nb-no/collection/reverse-vending) and sent directly to recycling. Bottles from all the different suppliers go together, none of them go back to the manufacturer of the content. And Coca-Cola has a deposit on bottles here and it is an entirely non-controversial idea.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoWell have to do something in the sense of use some proportion of the recycled plastic. They have been consistent in briefing against deposit and reuse, and recycling, despite using millions of tons of plastic a year. Moving to the system presently in Norway, and Germany I believe would be a huge step in the right direction. Sadly most governments appear afraid or unable to actually put accountability on corporations. Personally I'd require them to go back to deposit and reuse.
- Symbiote 7y agoIn Denmark, most bottles are as you describe, but glass returflaske are sent back to the brewery for refilling. These are the biggest beer brands (Carlsberg etc) and the biggest soda brands (Coke etc), though the glass soda bottles are mostly seen in bars.
- koboll 7y ago>why do they oppose a fee that is unlikely to hurt overall sales? Do you have any evidence for this? It seems like any fee, even a small one, is going to impact sales when an item is priced as low as soda is. That's not to say their stance is justified or morally right. But framing it as primarily driven by opposition to recycling (which is a source of cheaper raw materials for them), as opposed to blanket opposition to any kind of fee being added to the price of their products, strikes me as misleading.
- mattmaroon 7y agoNo, they aren't reusing the plastic coke bottles like in the old days. The downstream recycling isn't handled by Coca-Cola, so they don't have to do anything with those returned bottles. The thing is, it does make the product more expensive. A ten cent deposit on a dollar product means a customer has pull $1.10 out of their pocket or CC balance. Customers don't think logically, and even if they do, they have to assign some monetary value to having to bring the bottle back, the chance that it may be discarded, etc. It does hurt sales. If it didn't, the Coke would already be $1.10. (My exact numbers are fictitious, obviously, but the point is that Coke has already set their price at the number that maximizes profit.) I'm not opposed to bottle deposits. They're highly effective. I just think it's disingenuous to act as if Coke here is opposed to recycling in general. They're not. They're opposed to the reduced sales that will come from higher prices. That difference gives recycling advocates options. They can agree to spend some money on educating consumers, or making bottle returns easier, or anything else that might help ease the effect Coke is trying to avoid. They can probably find some common ground. There's no possible reason for Coke to be opposed to recycling in general.
- Mountain_Skies 7y agoOr the same when you returned your previous bottle or can while purchasing the next one. As a kid in Michigan during the late 70s, we scoured everywhere looking for cans we could return for the $0.10 (inflation adjusted $0.39 today) deposit. They were very difficult to find while they seemed to inhabit every ditch, roadside, and park in other states when visiting relatives. Obviously most cans were returned and the deposit refunded in Michigan. If you want to come up with a way of saying deposits increase the cost of the product, focus on the cost of administration for collecting and refunding deposits rather than the deposits themselves.
- mattmaroon 7y agoRight. It is more sensational. It's misleading though. It's not like Coke gives a flying fuck what happens to the plastic downstream. They aren't fighting recycling, they're fighting their product costing more. It's just coincidence that those are related. I was pointing out the article's bias.
- tsegratis 7y agoRelations are important "I didn't stop you from eating cake; I just wanted to eat it all myself" "I don't support oppression in the East; I just want to have the products they sell" No-one ever has a goal to do something bad. It is just a by-product of not giving a flying ^^ -- Yes, avoid biased views; but lets not also avoid escaping responsibility, even if by coincidence
- mattmaroon 7y agoSure, but it is absolutely not helpful to reframe it in a negative way. Coca-Cola is fighting bottle deposits. And they're not evenfighting battle deposits, they are fighting the reduced sales that will result from bottle deposits. They aren't fighting recycling. If you are somebody who wants recycling that is a very useful distinction because it gives you a place to find common ground. There is room for recycling advocates and Coca-Cola to work together, whereas if Coca-Cola were just opposed to recycling there would not be.
- tsegratis 7y agoHa ha, agreed that is a useful distinction. I confess to not reading the article... But at some level I think only considering personal gain is negative Otherwise we would say tobacco companies weren't negative to surpress evidence of cancer... Just because they want to sell cigarettes Are coca-cola undermining the common ground? If they openly try to resolve these issues, I don't think anyone would call it negative -- I want coca-cola to be their own main advocates for improvement
- sokoloff 7y agoTo their direct competitors, yes. To water from the faucet, home-made iced tea, and other substitute goods, the deposit does not apply equally.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoMost Americans are afraid of tap water and have been brainwashed into thinking overpriced bottled water is better.
- mattmaroon 7y agoIt does equal more expensive. Maybe not more expensive than Pepsi, but more expensive nonetheless. Even if you assume you'll return 100% of them, which you won't, you have to value the time spent doing so. And when you don't return 100%, which will be the case for most people, you eat a fee.
- PeterisP 7y agoThing is, it's not that Coca-Cola is fighting such legislation (which would be reasonable), it's that recycling organizations are fighting such legislation... because they're being partially funded by Coca-Cola; and this conflict of interest isn't really appropriate.
- amriksohata 7y agoIn the UK there is a tax on sugary drinks so people pay more which is a good thing. Just shows if this tax is adopted how much of a nuisance certain companies are for the health and environment
- avar 7y agoThose sorts of sin taxes are the poster child for dumbly implemented tax policy. Tax the waste and pollution, or obesity and other health impacts that cause societal externalities. There's nothing wrong with drinking sugary water in moderation.
- kibibu 7y agoNot in countries with partially or fully-socialized healthcare. If drinking litres of cola causes diseases that the public purse has to support, then pay more for the cola.
- rayiner 7y agoJust deny care to those who drink soda or do other unhealthy things.
- Al-Khwarizmi 7y agoDifficult to implement, how do you know if a given person is obese due to soda or to, e.g., genetics? And even if it could be implemented, it's still not the point of universal healthcare. In most European countries we'd rather take care of everyone, even those who are guilty of their own health problems. For example, and even from an egoistic point of view and leaving ethics aside, I'd rather have drug addicts treated and sheltered with my tax money than having to encounter dozens of them, homeless and stinking from bad hygiene, every time I walk the street, as I have seen in many US cities.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- spodek 7y agoThe irony is that packaged goods companies generally promote and love recycling because it distracts from reducing, as in reduce, reuse, recycle. Getting people to think recycling helps, rather than mildly mitigates pollution, keeps their sales up. Since their products are nearly all unhealthy and all pollute, "reduce" suggests we all benefit from no one buying their products at all. If they thought about how environmental concerns will affect them, they'd promote recycling wholeheartedly, not half.
- journalctl 7y agoOr they’d go out of business entirely. But that’s like asking Facebook to care about privacy: if they did, they’d cease to exist. Where’s the corporate death penalty when you need it?
- ehsankia 7y agoRelevant segment from Adam Ruins Everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koqNm_TgOZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koqNm_TgOZk
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- PretzelFisch 7y agoIt's sad when these packagers/bottlers like Coca-Cola used glass there was a great recycle program built into it. Very sad that this faded away as they changed to plastic.
- steve19 7y agoIt only faded away in the West. While staying at a hotel in Africa not long ago I was served Coke in a glass bottle over 15 years old. The bottle looked like what you would expect from a glass bottle that has been use for that long, but the Coke tasted just as good as it usually does.
- pixl97 7y agoGlass causes a massive amount of pollution via breakage and product loss, injury, and more carbon use because of its higher weight.
- frankharv 7y agoDupe from 14 hours ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21301440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21301440 Also 24 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21292800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21292800 Don't you read hackernews before posting?
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoNeither of which, unlike this one, have attracted discussion. One comment between the two.
- frankharv 7y agoSo what. This is the third time the same exact article was posted in 24 hours. Flag me if you must but I speak the truth.
- dang 7y agoOn HN, reposts are fine if an article hasn't had significant attention yet. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
- Vaslo 7y agoThe OP should get the credit for posting though - the rules are confusing, why should someone get credit for the same thing simply because they post again at “the right time”?
- carapace 7y agoDon't take "points" so seriously? It's not like you can trade them in for cash or prizes.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoThey're consistent then. Keep America Beautiful was formed in reaction to proposed 1953 Vermont legislation to require deposits on bottles. American Can Company, Pepsi, Coke, Budweiser, Philip Morris and others figured out, funded and launched the group. Neatly framing their new externality as solely a fault with their customers. Interestingly Coke and others are complaining in the UK that rules to require 30% recycled plastic are too onerous, and have caused the cost of recycled plastic to rise.
- augustocallejas 7y agoThis was well covered in the NPR podcast Throughline: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757539617/the-litter-myth https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757539617/the-litter-myth
- dmytroi 7y agoQuick google shows that recycle rate is ~30% for PET bottles in US in 2015 [0]. Not obvious if the problem is that customers not returning/recycling bottles or that garbage just gets landfilled. Compare that to Nordics, where Norway achieved 95.4% return rate of PET bottles (~0.3 USD return cash-back), and Sweden 84% (~0.15 USD return) [1]. Most countries in EU have landfill ban [2], so most of waste is either burned or recycled. Diverting bottles/cans to return scheme solves garbage sorting problem, which makes it possible to process/recycle 100% of it just by improving recycling facilities. In my personal opinion, closed loop systems (full ban on landfills) are better for everyone, but require deep systematic changes, potentially using "dirty" psychological tricks, to get done what's really needed. Adding deposits may sound negative from NIMBY/corporate, but it leverages human psychological on last mile (where garbage sorting is easiest) and from empirical evidence achieves what needs to be done. - [0] https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-... - [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container-deposit_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container-deposit_legislation - [2] http://www.cewep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Landfill-taxes-and-bans-overview.pdf http://www.cewep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Landfill-taxe...
- Shivetya 7y agoNot sure how it panned out elsewhere, but we used to have newspaper, magazine, and aluminum can, recycling bins in school parking lots. They got moved of course after all the "predator" laws but even after being moved most were abandoned as people used them for general trash; as in they did not want to pay for services or take to dump on their own their regular trash. Just slapping recycle costs on all three forms of drink containers should be sufficient to boost return to proper places. I remember bottle deposits doing well.
- nashashmi 7y agoIn Pakistan in 1990s, Coca-Cola and Pepsi would give out glass bottles and set up efforts to recover them, Offering discounts if they did. Plastic bottles are now the new norm unfortunately.
- MrStonedOne 7y agoMisleading title. Coca-Cola pushing back on a bill that would increase their overhead, increase the cost of their product, and decrease sales is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to label as "Undermining Plastic Recycling Efforts". Especially when they do things to push for the recycling efforts in other ways. That's not to say bottle deposits wouldn't be a great system, regardless of how it hurts Coca-Cola's bottle line - I just can't abide by such egregious dishonesty. I've taken to referring to such over generalization of titles "the news cycle Simpson's Paradox." Its masking material details by over generalizing or over abstracting them away.
- danharaj 7y agoJust because it's in Coca Cola's best interest to undermine effective plastic recycling policies does not mean it's dishonest to claim that Coca Cola is undermining effective plastic recycling policies. > Especially when they do so much to push for the recycling efforts in other ways. Comparatively ineffective ways. The fact that a company like Coca Cola can choke policy by making it rain money so that effective policy that hurts their profits cannot be implemented is the crux of the article. How is this title dishonest?
- MrStonedOne 7y agoThey did it to one type of policy. Framing it in the light of "They are blocking [all] recycling efforts" is dishonest. In the sense of I read the title, thought, why the fuck is coca-cola blocking recycling efforts, why don't they like recycling? clicked, read, and was disappointed because I felt mislead and click bated to read an article i wouldn't have bothered to read if it was titled more honestly like, "[How] Coca-Cola uses it's charitable efforts in recycling nonprofits to block bottle deposit bills" So, to answer your question, it's dishonest and misleading because its an over-generalized and over-abstracted summary of the subject matter that gains clicks that a more on point title would not gain.
- danharaj 7y ago> Framing it in the light of "They are blocking [all] recycling efforts" is dishonest. But that's not the title. That's a much stronger statement than the article. If you choose such creative ways to interpret people's words then you can make anyone sound dishonest or stupid.
- jstewartmobile 7y agoplastic and aluminum litter, xenoestrogens, reservoir depletion, diabetes, obesity, tooth decay... if only I could figure out a scalable way to punch people in the face, give them the herp, and charge for it? instant billionaire!
- carapace 7y agoUpvoted you because, despite le snark, I think you're making a really good point: Soda is fucking nuts. Seriously, "pop" et. al. is "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" level farce. There are places where it's easier to get Coke than potable water. "If sugar had been discovered recently instead of in antiquity it would be a controlled substance instead of being half our kids' meals."
- agent86 7y agoI'm looking for HN to provide me some perspective outside of my little bubble here. I've only ever lived in states that have had bottle deposits. I've been feeding these cans/bottles back into the redemption machines since I was a kid. I can genuinely stay that I've recycled nearly every eligible container I've ever used. However for most of my adult live I've also had recycling available at curbside - including cans/bottles. It was originally paper, glass and metal separated, but has since gone single stream. We recycle everything we can that is eligible, but I don't put cans/bottles in there because I'd lose the deposit. I wish the deposit was gone so that I could put these items in there and gain this little efficiency in life. At the same time I see these studies where the data clearly shows the deposit has a significantly higher effective recycling rate. I'm struggling to understand this. Do the places without deposits also not have curbside single stream recycling that processes these containers? Can someone with experience in a location with no deposit but with curbside single stream recycling available for these items explain why people aren't recycling them there? Is really as simple as "people won't put things into a different trash receptacle in their home"?
- URSpider94 7y agoHere’s my wild guess: a lot of bottled soda gets consumed and disposed of away from the home. Very few non-home waste streams have effective recycling paths. By adding a bottle deposit, you are effectively hiring an army of gig workers to paw through those other streams and filter out all of the containers. Watch carefully the next time you are out in a city, you’ll see people on bicycles or with wagons bulging with bottles inspecting every city waste bin. As an example, at work, I could put a drink bottle in my waste bin at my desk (which normally holds just clean paper) knowing that the cleaners will grab it and recycle it. Additionally - yes, there are many people who fundamentally refuse to separate their trash, but will do so for a nickel per bottle.
- catalogia 7y agoRelying on those people to sort out recyclables is probably a net-negative for the environment since they very often leave non-recyclables (or those without deposits) scattered on the ground where they get washed down storm drains, blown away, etc. It would be better to directly employ those people at sorting facilities, but that can be difficult for a number of reasons.
- KirinDave 7y agoReading this makes me angry, and reminds me that there is an already incredibly (and increasingly) lucrative market for repurposing post-consumer plastics as material for modern industrial (and home-based post-industrial) 3d print manufacture. Good food-grade filament is expensive, but with a bit of work you can easily repurpose and re-extrude food-grade plastic for new work. Similar stories exist for PLA and ABS, especially in industrial settings where machines are designed to work with less pure stock. Maybe that should be my next business... My other question is, when do we start seeing these corporations as unaccountable extra-legal entities who are in a very real sense an enemy of future generations of humans and their prosperity? If we do come to that conclusion, what is the appropriate physical response? Do we begin to protest their plants as aggressively as US citizens protest ICE administration and/or incarceration facilities?
- stjohnswarts 7y agoDo you actually think there is a 3D printer market big enough to handle all the plastics that are in drink bottles and such? I bet it isn't even 1/10000 of the actual waste.
- KirinDave 7y agoNo, not now. In the future, yes.
- Scoundreller 7y ago2 annoying things that Coke has done: 1) their hourglass bottles use more plastic per 2L bottle than other 2L bottles 2) They reduced their 591mL bottles to 500. Ugh.
- lultimouomo 7y agoWas the 591mL bottle a single portion? That seems huge... The half liter is already a bit too much for me.
- Scoundreller 7y agoResealable cap. Up to the buyer as for how quickly they want to drink it.
- dsego 7y agoDoesn't it go flat quickly?
- Scoundreller 7y agoIf you put the other half in the fridge and drink within a few days, no.
- dghughes 7y agoIf anything the sheer amount of soda pop people drink is concerning. The plastic waste is due to the chosen diets of consumers. When I was a kid in late 70s early 80s my family of four shared one 750ml bottle of pop (and one bag of chips) on Friday night. Now a 600ml is a single serving of pop and many people drink pop with every meal.
- thatfrenchguy 7y ago> The plastic waste is due to the chosen diets of consumers. They’re not chosen though, they are the result of billions of dollars spent on advertising.
- catalogia 7y agoAnd yet many choose to abstain. The advertising is a problem and should be banned, but that's not reason to dehumanize consumers by denying their agency. People do have a choice and they should be reminded of that at every opportunity.
- WalterBright 7y agoI drank a lot of coke until about 10 years ago, when I stopped. The first year was difficult, after that I was not tempted anymore. The advertising has no effect on me. I have drunk a couple cans since, but didn't particularly care for the sticky, syrupy taste, and did not resume the habit.
- bhouston 7y agoEven water bottles should have a deposit.
- WalterBright 7y agoTap water is better for you anyway. Bottled water has the minerals filtered out, tap water does not, and you need the minerals.
- bhouston 7y agoWe should bring this up with Warren Buffet, isn't he one of the main investors in Coca Cola? Warren Buffet likes to pretend he is great but we should clearly associate his personal fortune with the plastic pollution that Coca Cola produces in mass.
- bipolar_lisper 7y agocan someone give me a good argument for not using glass
- mqus 7y ago1. It's heavy. In fact it's so heavy that it's sometimes (mostly? don't have a source at hand) more environment-friendly to reuse plastic bottles than driving all that weight around. Obviously, the weight also makes it inconvenient, e.g. if you don't have a car you have to put that on your bicycle and/or lift it to the next public transit station. 2. It can break more easily. If it breaks, you can cut yourself on it. You can also cut others which is why those bottles are prohibited at some places with security controls or some workplaces.
- stjohnswarts 7y agoI don't think I'd work at a place where they think that my glass bottle is a deadly weapon. That sounds like a bad place to work.
- pixl97 7y agoUm, right, which place would that be that you control the actions of others? I've seen two programmers get in a fight before, in a place I would consider rather safe and non violent.
- mqus 7y agoThe reason glass bottles are prohibited at some workplaces are mostly because of situations in factories(or similar) where you let your bottle fall to the ground and the glass can hurt others unintentionally, disrupting the work, (maybe also insurance, I don't know), etc. It's just to prevent workplace injuries. I could have made that clearer in my sentence, sorry.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- wiseleo 7y agoOne of the hurdles of effectively recouping the California Redemption Value deposit is that the would-be recycler has to take them to a smelly location far away from place of purchase and endure the inconvenience of waiting in line and dealing with unwritten rules and other customers. I remember being in some East Coast state, I think it was Maine, where I could return beverage containers at same store where I bought the drinks. That's convenient. Going to a recycling facility to get 5 cents back per container is not. My fuel cost would be higher than the value of returned deposit. I recycled cans a few times. It's convoluted. The rate per can is in practice disregarded and it would actually be lower at about $1.43/lb than the $1.63/lb that could be paid out today by weight. The centers pay a rate per pound. However, they can pay either the CRV rate per pound or the scrap metal rate. Most infrequent recyclers would have no idea these are options. "How much do recycling centers pay per pound for cans and bottles? Currently, state certified recycling centers pay a minimum of $1.63 CRV for aluminum cans; $1.26 CRV for clear PET plastic bottles; $0.60 CRV for HDPE plastic bottles (similar to the large water jugs); and $0.10 CRV for glass bottles. These CRV per pound rates are periodically adjusted, with new rates taking effect January 1 and July 1. In addition to the CRV, recyclers may also pay a scrap value, which may also fluctuate. Can recycling centers pay less than the refund value for redeemed containers? Yes, if the material is contaminated. Operators of certified recycling centers must inspect each load of containers to determine whether it is eligible for CRV. Recycling centers have the option to refuse to accept containers which, in their opinion, are excessively contaminated with dirt, moisture, or other foreign substances. Alternatively, recycling centers may adjust downward the CRV per pound used to calculate the payment by the ratio of such substances to empty beverage containers. In this circumstance, the consumer has the right to accept the discounted refund and/or scrap price, to separate refund from nonrefund material, or to take the material back."
- Qub3d 7y agoThe state of Michigan does this; you can return the bottles at the store you bought them from using automated can return systems. I haul in a bag every couple of months and get a coupon code that I can either turn into cash or use on my in-store purchase. Its really slick.
- tbihl 7y agoBottle deposits make me markedly less likely to recycle. Without them, it's a small amount of energy to bring the bottles back home to recycle, so I can pretend that I'm not generating waste. With deposits, I trash those and typically trash the ones at my house, because otherwise I'm providing a monetary incentive for homeless people to come to my house and root through my bins.
- oska 7y agoCoca-Cola is an almost wholly evil company. By 'evil' I mean they poison people's quality of life and harm the environment and they do it knowingly. They are in exactly the same category as tobacco companies.
- Swannie 7y ago> Several months ago, Coke came out in support of a bottle deposit program in Australia. Guess who "co-ordinates" the bottle return scheme in New South Wales (where the linked article references)? It's a joint venture of which Coca-Cola Amatil (CCA - the Australian distributor), is a key stakeholder. So they basically control what is an acceptable bottle, what the price you must pay for that is, etc. and charge for producer certification, etc. It's put the squeeze on a lot of smaller craft beer and beverage producers, as the costs to implement have been pushed on to them. Oh and in Australia it's illegal for the brewers to re-use glass bottles, irrespective of their prior use or treatment :-( [1] https://returnandearn.org.au/about-return-and-earn/ https://returnandearn.org.au/about-return-and-earn/